The structural profiles are close, with Sodexo carrying a narrow edge on profitability. Thomson Reuters still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
On profitability, the clearer edge sits with Thomson Reuters Corporation, while the overall score remains tighter and points the other way.
Both operate in: Specialty Business Services
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. SW.PA and TRI share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Sodexo and Thomson Reuters each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in profitability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Thomson Reuters Corporation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Return on equity adds support too, with a 6.2-point advantage.
Thomson Reuters Corporation still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though profitability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the SW.PA vs TRI comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how SW.PA and TRI each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.